“NPPF 22 read as a whole clearly covers both the need to prevent long term protection of sites where there is no reasonable prospect of the allocated use coming forwards and the need for applications for alternative uses to be assessed where there is no reasonable prospect of the allocated use coming forward.” [54]

San Investments Ltd [2016] EWHC 2830 (Admin), Green J

“Ms Candlin appearing for the Secretary of State pointed out that there was a well-worn dichotomy at the heart of the planning system which distinguished between ordinary decisions taken in respect of planning applications and decisions against allocations in Plans requiring that land be used in a specific or a particular way. She said that this conclusion flowed out of paragraph [22] itself which encouraged the planning authorities to perform regular reviews of the allocation which encouragement only made sense in the context of a prior allocation exercise.” [28]

“In my view Ms Candlin is correct. The concept of allocation, although not a defined term of art, is one which has a particular meaning when understood in the context of the Framework. It is referring to the process of prior determination or designation of uses “ allocated ” to sites specifically included within the development plans. And the site in issue in the present case was not so. Accordingly paragraph [22] does not apply.” [30]

Landmark Chambers has updated its cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes cookies from third party social media website if you visit a page which contains embedded content from social media. Such third party cookies may track your use of Landmark’s website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Landmark website. However, you can change your cookie settings at any time Find out more